|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
I meant that indeed there was a license agreement between Microsoft and Apple
(as indeed there had been previously between Apple and Xerox) for use of
graphical interface elements in Windows 1.0, and that this agreement formed the
basis for Apple's initial complaint when Windows 2.0 came out and expanded upon
the use of Mac-like features.
Apple did lose in court it's sweeping claims that the look-and-feel of the
Macintosh GUI was subject to copyright protection. The court developed a
framework for analyzing such claims rather than dismissing them out of hand. MS
was the beneficiary at the time of the limitations of that analytic framework,
and no doubt they learned a lesson at Apple's expense that patent bluffing
rather than copyright bluffing will more likely succeed.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
Link
The Microsoft Corporation
and Apple Computer Inc. today made public a previously confidential 1985
agreement that gives Microsoft the right to use certain visual displays
available on Macintosh personal computers. But the companies disagree on the
limits of the agreement.
Scrolling down a bit on that
page:
But Apple contends that the agreement was limited to the
visual displays in Version 1.0 of Windows, and that the Version 2.03 displays
infringe on its copyrights. "We feel Microsoft has exceeded the limits of the
agreement," said Carleen LeVasseur, an Apple spokeswoman. "As far back as
mid-1986, they were advised that the agreement was limited to
1.0."
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language
because it is a very stupid theorem prover." -- Richard O'Keefe [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
